ITAT dismisses appeal, upholds revision order requiring proper inquiry into Section 32AC deduction claim for new plant and machinery

The ITAT Cochin upheld the Pr. CIT's revision order u/s 263 regarding deduction u/s 32AC for investment in new plant and machinery. The AO failed to conduct proper inquiry into the assessee's claim, accepting the assessee's reply without due verification or application of mind. The court found the AO's assessment lacked adequate examination of whether plant and machinery was properly "acquired" versus "installed" under the provision. The matter was correctly set aside for de novo consideration by the AO with directions for proper inquiry and speaking order. The assessee's appeal challenging the revision was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for deduction under Section 32AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO).
3. Incorrect application of law by the AO.
4. Requirement for a de novo examination by the AO.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 32AC:

The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Pr.CIT) observed that the tax audit report (TAR) in Form 3CD indicated the value of plant and machinery acquired and installed during the prescribed period at Rs. 47.18 crore, which is below the qualifying amount of Rs. 100 crore as required under Section 32AC. Additionally, purchase invoices for assets exceeding Rs. 3 crore, on which the deduction was claimed, pertained to the period before 01.04.2013, amounting to Rs. 226.51 crore. Deducting this from Rs. 314.57 crore resulted in new assets acquired and installed during the relevant year being Rs. 88.06 crore, again below Rs. 100 crore.

2. Non-application of Mind by the Assessing Officer (AO):

The Pr.CIT noted that the AO failed to notice these discrepancies during the assessment, leading to an erroneous assumption of facts and incorrect application of law. The AO did not inquire about the eligibility of the assessee for the deduction under Section 32AC, nor did he verify the details provided by the assessee adequately. The AO's order was thus deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

3. Incorrect Application of Law by the AO:

The Pr.CIT concluded that the AO applied the law incorrectly by assuming that the assets acquired and installed during the year met the qualifying criteria for deduction under Section 32AC without proper verification. The assessee argued that the assets should be considered acquired only upon installation and successful test checks, which was not examined by the AO. This incorrect application of law was consequential to the AO's incorrect presumption of facts and non-application of mind.

4. Requirement for a De Novo Examination by the AO:

Given the AO's failure to conduct a proper inquiry, the Pr.CIT set aside the assessment for a de novo examination. The AO is required to verify the facts and circumstances of the case, ensuring that the assessee's eligibility for the deduction under Section 32AC is correctly determined. The de novo examination should include a thorough verification of the purchase invoices and the actual cost of new assets acquired and installed during the relevant period.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the Pr.CIT's order, emphasizing the need for a de novo examination by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the AO must apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, ensuring that the assessee's eligibility for the deduction is correctly determined and verified. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, reiterating the importance of a speaking order by the AO in accordance with the law.

---